DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00735 
COUNSEL:   
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  bad  conduct  characterization  of  service  be  upgraded  to 
accurately reflect his 18 years of service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
As  a  result  of  his  general  court  martial  he  was  given  a  bad 
conduct discharge.  He believes this to be in error because it 
does not accurately reflect his service to the US Air Force.  He 
was by all reports; a credit to the Air Force for 18 years.  In 
all those years he never received as much as a complaint on any 
of his reviews.  In fact, not only were there no complaints in 
his evaluations but his superiors raved about his performance.   
 
There is no counting the number of drug tests he passed during 
the time he was a member of the Air Force.  He made one mistake 
after 18 years of excellent service.  If you look at the reviews 
from  his  supervisors,  the  numerous  merit  awards  won,  and  take 
into  account  this  was  a  one-time  mistake,  the  general  court 
martial  and  bad  conduct  discharge  does  not  accurately  reflect 
his service.  The discharge has detrimentally affected his life 
in a way that is inequitable considering his Air Force service.   
 
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of  Release  or  Discharge  from  Active 
Duty, and copies of his enlisted performance reports, as well as 
documents pertaining to federal awards, medals and recognition.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According  to  documents  extracted  from  his  military  personnel 
records,  the  applicant  is  a  former  member  of  the  Regular  Air 
Force  who  entered  active  duty  on  10  May  1985.    He  served  as  a 
Turboprop Propulsion Mechanic and was progressively promoted to 
the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6.   

 
On 24 October 2004, the applicant was tried by a general court-
martial for one specification of wrongful use of cocaine and one 
specification of wrongful use of marijuana.  He pled not guilty 
to  both  specifications,  but  was  found  guilty  of  both 
specifications  in  violation  of  Article  112a,  Uniform  Code  of 
Military  Justice  (UCMJ),  Wrongful  Use,  Possession,  etc.,  of 
Controlled  Substances.    His  sentence  was  a  bad  conduct 
discharge,  confinement  for  60  days,  and  reduction  to  the  grade 
of airman basic. 
 
The  sentence  was  approved  as  adjudged  on  2  March  2005,  by  the 
convening authority.  On 7 April 2006, the US Air Force Court of 
Military  Appeals  affirmed  the  court-martial  conviction.    The 
applicant’s petition for a grant of review through the US Court 
of  Appeals  was  denied  and  his  sentence  became  final  on 
20 March 2007.   
 
The applicant was released from active duty on 3 July 2007, with 
a bad conduct characterization of service and was credited with 
22  years  and  9  days  of  active  duty  service.    His  grade  at  the 
time of release was Airman Basic, E-1, with an effective date of 
pay grade of 12 November 2004. 
 
Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  Federal  Bureau  of 
Investigation  (FBI)  provided  a  copy  of  an  Investigative  Report 
which is at Exhibit C.   
 
A  copy  of  the  FBI  Investigative  Report  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  22  August  2012,  along  with  a  request  for  post-
service  documentation  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit F).  To date, this office has not received a response.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states the applicant offers 
no allegation of injustice.  He simply requests his bad conduct 
discharge be upgraded to more accurately reflect the true nature 
of  his  18  years  of  service.    He  alleges  no  error  in  the 
processing of the court-martial conviction against him.  At the 
trial  the  applicant  pled  not  guilty;  nevertheless,  the  court 
adjudged  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  based  on  the  evidence 
presented by the prosecution.  The applicant was convicted by a 
general court-martial, consisting of a panel of officer members.  
The panel took all factors into consideration when imposing the 
applicant’s  sentence.    Both  the  adjudged  and  the  approved 
sentences  were  below  the  maximum  possible  sentence  of  a 
dishonorable  discharge,  confinement  for  five  years,  total 
forfeitures of all pay and allowances and reduction to the grade 
of airman basic.   
 

 

2 

Rules  for  Courts-Martial  1003(b),  (8),  (C),  state  that  a  bad 
conduct  discharge  “is  designed  as  punishment  for  bad  conduct.”  
It  also  indicates  that  a  bad  conduct  discharge  is  more  than 
merely  a  service  characterization;  it  is  a  punishment  for  the 
crimes  the  applicant  committed  while  a  member  of  the  armed 
forces.    The  applicant’s  sentence  to  a  bad  conduct  discharge, 
confinement for 60 days, and a reduction to the grade of airman 
basic, were well within the legal limits and was an appropriate 
punishment  for  the  offense  committed.    A  bad  conduct  discharge 
was and continues to be part of a proper sentence and properly 
characterizes his service.   
 
Additionally,  clemency  in  this  case  would  be  unfair  to  those 
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform.  
Congress’  intent  in  setting  up  the  Veterans’  Benefits  Program 
was  to  express  thanks  for  veterans’  personal  sacrifices, 
separations  from  family,  facing  hostile  enemy  action,  and 
suffering  financial  hardships.    All  rights  of  a  veteran  under 
the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs are 
barred  where  the  veteran  was  discharged  or  dismissed  by  reason 
of  the  sentence  of  a  general  court-martial.    See  38  U.S.C. 
5303(a).  This makes sense if the benefit program is to have any 
real  value.    It  would  be  offensive  to  all  those  who  served 
honorably  to  extend  the  same  benefits  to  someone  who  committed 
crimes such as the applicant’s while on active duty.   
 
The complete AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  by  way  of  counsel  on  12  March  2012,  for  review  and 
comment  within  30  days  (Exhibit  E).    To  date,  this  office  has 
not received a response.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Military Justice Division and adopt its rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant's discharge was 

 

3 

based  on  his  trial  and  conviction  by  a  general  court-martial.  
Evidence  has  not  been  provided  to  show  that  the  applicant's 
discharge  was  erroneous  or  unjust.    While  we  are  precluded  by 
law from reversing a court-martial conviction, we are authorized 
to  correct  the  records  to  reflect  actions  taken  by  reviewing 
officials and to take action on the sentence of a military court 
based  on  clemency.    Notwithstanding  his  otherwise  good  service 
record,  in  view  of  the  seriousness  of  the  misconduct  he 
committed  (i.e.,  the  use  of  illegal  substances),  there  is 
nothing in the available record which would cause us to disturb 
the actions of the reviewing officials in this case.  Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  material  error  or  injustice;  that 
the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and 
that  the  application  will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
BC-2012-00735 in Executive Session on 2 October 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 February 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records 
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 2 April 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 2012. 
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 August 2012. 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

 
 

 

4